Why are single drivers disliked to such an extent by most in this forum?

[SivKiv]

If you have candidates, send me one and I will test. I have only tested on with a 4 inch driver that performed extremely poor: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...research-lgk-2-0-speaker-review-a-joke.34783/

Sorry, I don't actually have a pair, I asked here because I was just curious about what is the general reason for a single driver speaker's poor performance that makes them so unattractive. Many of you here seem to be much more knowledgeable and less biased compared to multitudes of other forums, so I decided that asking this question here wouldn't be a idea. One set I am curious about being measured however would be the Super Cubes 5 by DMAX Audio, but I unfortunately do not have a set, nor know someone else who does.

 

[tuga]

I am aware that these have a few issues, from IMD, to limited SPL capability, and beaming at higher frequencies, but are they so poor at these aspects that single driver sets are basically a pointless design to consider?

The answer is yes.

 

[Blumlein 88]

not sure what you mean by 'can't work', maybe we should define our terms?

Will they be full range? No.
Will they be high fidelity? No.
Will they make an acceptable sound in the room? - yes it's possible

If washed up on a desert island with single driver speakers and a set of headphones I'd use the single driver speakers. Turn the headphones into a washing line.

Well obviously they can work. Tabletop radios and TVs mostly have single driver speakers for a couple of examples. In terms of increased fidelity, going to a 2 way design opens up the possible performance envelope by a large magnitude. Any attempt to match the available performance by a good 2 way with a single driver will increase cost and still likely come up short in usable performance. Electrostatic panel speakers are single driver (though usually not crossover-less). The Quad ESL63 and variants are probably the most successful single driver design ever.

 

[eddantes]

At best OK bass. Lazer beam highs (thats a bad-ish thing). High distortion. Still... as an owner of 12" phillips norelco in a fridge sized U frame... they come with their own "fun factor" that's enjoyable, but only for a while.

FR drivers are not really a solution...

 

[Tangband]

I am aware that these have a few issues, from IMD, to limited SPL capability, and beaming at higher frequencies, but are they so poor at these aspects that single driver sets are basically a pointless design to consider? Or is there something else about them that makes them such an unattractive option measurement wise?

Single drivers have one big advantage - no crossover where the ear is most sensitive. A good fullrange driver is probably better because of this between 300 Hz - 6 kHz than an ordinary two way loudspeaker. This might have consequences for the perceived sound quality . Im gonna build a Sibelius clone this summer to see If there is something in this, and compare it to my Genelecs.

 

[dedobot]

I had private audition of giant single drive horns. I very liked the performance but sweet spot is sooo tiny. Move your head centimeters in an direction and everything falls apart.
P.s.
Etheraudio Normal 28
Full Range Loudspeaker

 

[fpitas]

Single drivers have one big advantage - no crossover where the ear is most sensitive. A good fullrange driver is probably better because of this between 300 Hz - 6 kHz than an ordinary two way loudspeaker. This might have consequences for the perceived sound quality . Im gonna build a Sibelius clone this summer to see If there is something in this, and compare it to my Genelecs.

I'm skeptical that a properly designed crossover "sticks out" in the fashion you describe. We experimented with phase-flattening LR4 at 800Hz, and could not hear any difference. I think that a lot of multi-way speakers are simply badly designed.

 

[Tangband]

I'm skeptical that a properly designed crossover "sticks out" in the fashion you describe. We experimented with phase-flattening LR4 at 800Hz, and could not hear any difference. I think that a lot of multi-way speakers are simply badly designed.

Thats true. And they are many.

 

[fpitas]

Thats true. And they are many.

Yes. Especially with deep horns, there is no replacement for digital delay to time-align. But even a lot of high-end speakers that Amir tests appear to be botched, perhaps in the pursuit of some house sound.

 

[Mnyb]

I'm skeptical that a properly designed crossover "sticks out" in the fashion you describe. We experimented with phase-flattening LR4 at 800Hz, and could not hear any difference. I think that a lot of multi-way speakers are simply badly designed.

yes before directivity was properly understood , ofcourse the driver crossing in the midrange was very audible then nowadays not so much with coaxials or waveguided drivers .

The "solution" for older two ways was a quite high xover frequency to the treble in the 3,5 kHz range in some cases ?

 

[fpitas]

Full confession: I designed a speaker for a friend with a full-range driver, the old Pioneer BF20FU20-51FW, with a whizzer cone. We did add a tweeter to help the terrible response past 5kHz. They sounded OK. Not much bass, but fun to listen to.

 

[restorer-john]

It can work. Look at the classic Bose 901s.

All you need is a bit (lot) of EQ.

 

[Purité Audio]

Does becoming a single driver loudspeaker designer require the same amount of technical knowledge as designing an open baffle loudspeaker ie none?
Keith

 

[fpitas]

yes before directivity was properly understood , ofcourse the driver crossing in the midrange was very audible then nowadays not so much with coaxials or waveguided drivers .

The "solution" for older two ways was a quite high xover frequency to the treble in the 3,5 kHz range in some cases ?

People used to use Butterworth crossovers too, and were more or less forced to cross in phase quadrature to avoid the 3dB peak. And until computer analysis became common, passive crossover design was kind of a nightmare.

 

[tuga]

Full confession: I designed a speaker for a friend with a full-range driver, the old Pioneer BF20FU20-51FW, with a whizzer cone. We did add a tweeter to help the terrible response past 5kHz. They sounded OK. Not much bass, but fun to listen to.

In other words, you identified the unsurmountable problems of the single-driver speaker topology and transformed into a two-way design.

 

[fpitas]

In other words, you identified the unsurmountable problems of the single-driver speaker topology and transformed into a two-way design.

Well...yeah

 

[fpitas]

It can work. Look at the classic Bose 901s.

All you need is a bit (lot) of EQ.

True. No telling what the polar pattern looks like, but we do have an active thread for those who like such things: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eries-vi-active-equalizer-measurements.44569/

 

[Mart68]

Well obviously they can work. Tabletop radios and TVs mostly have single driver speakers for a couple of examples. In terms of increased fidelity, going to a 2 way design opens up the possible performance envelope by a large magnitude. Any attempt to match the available performance by a good 2 way with a single driver will increase cost and still likely come up short in usable performance. Electrostatic panel speakers are single driver (though usually not crossover-less). The Quad ESL63 and variants are probably the most successful single driver design ever.

really I am not much for two way designs either, unless they use a good compression driver. Both sets of speakers I have in daily use are three-way.

IMO two way cone and dome is almost as big a compromise as a single driver unless used with subs and high passed.

Electrostatics also have too many compromises for me although what they do well they do very well.

But there are single driver speakers that are good enough to make an acceptable sound, that's the point I was making. I don't really understand why anyone would want that compromise, and obviously anyone claiming they have some unique benefits is, well....wrong.

 

[fpitas]

But there are single driver speakers that are good enough to make an acceptable sound, that's the point I was making. I don't really understand why anyone would want that compromise, and obviously anyone claiming they have some unique benefits is, well....wrong.

My guess is that people who enjoy making nice cabinets, but are scared off by crossovers, naturally gravitate to them.

 

[Mart68]

My guess is that people who enjoy making nice cabinets, but are scared off by crossovers, naturally gravitate to them.

That would make sense. I only ever did one single driver speaker and that was a cheat since I bought some Lowther Acousta, sold the Lowther drivers for a large profit (the main point of the exercise) and installed some Audax 8'' full range units in the cabs.

The Audax drivers were quite expensive (£50 each thirty years ago). Stuck in the corners of the room to boost the bass a little they were not too bad.